Hague, Netherlands – The highest Court of the UN will issue a historical opinion on climate change on Wednesday, a decision that could establish a legal reference point for global action before the climatic crisis.
After years of pressure from the vulnerable island nations that fear disappearing under the increase in sea level, the UN General Assembly requested the International Court of Justice in 2023 an advisory opinion, a non -binding base but important for international obligations.
A panel of 15 judges had the task of answering two questions. First, what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and the environment from man’s greenhouse gas emissions? Secondly, what are the legal consequences for governments when their actions, or lack of action, have significantly damaged the climate and the environment?
“The bets could not be greater. The survival of my people and of many others is at stake,” said Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the Insular Nation of Vanuatu, before the Court during a week of hearings in December.
In the decade until 2023, sea level increased by a global average of around 1.7 inches, and some parts of the Pacific increased even more. The world has also heated 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit since the pre -industrial time due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Vanuatu is one of a group of small states that drive international legal intervention in the climatic crisis, but affects many more island nations in the South Pacific.
“The agreements that are being done internationally between the states are not moving quickly enough,” said Ralph Retendvanu, Minister of Climate Change of Vanuatu, to The Associated Press.
Any decision of the Hague Court would be a non -binding and unable advice to directly force the rich nations to act to help countries in difficulties. However, it would be more than a powerful symbol, since it could serve as a basis for other legal actions, including national demands.
“What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, the present and the future of climatic action. It is not only about future objectives, but also addresses historical responsibility, because we cannot resolve the climatic crisis without confronting its roots,” said Joie Chowdhury, main lawyer of the International Environmental Law Center, to AP.
Activists could submit lawsuits against their own countries for not complying with the decision and the States could return to the International Court of Justice to hold each other. And what the judges say will be used as a basis for other legal instruments, such as investment agreements, said Chowdhury.
The United States and Russia, both important oil -producing states, firmly oppose that the Court orders emission reductions.
1/8 | Climate alert: This looks the accelerated ice melting in Greenland. The World Weather Attribution scientific network warned Wednesday that ice in Greenland melted 17 times faster than the historical average between May 15 and 21, as a result of a record heat wave that also affected Iceland. – Google Maps
Simply having the court issuing an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter -American Court of Human Rights ruled that countries have the legal duty not only to avoid environmental damage, but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change.
In 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands issued the first major legal victory for climatic activists when judges ruled that protection against potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has the duty to protect its citizens.